Posted
by
Zonkon Monday June 25, 2007 @05:29AM
from the shiny-new-space-station dept.

Space writes "The trailer for the upcoming movie Babylon 5: The Lost Tales — Voices in the Dark has been posted at the official Babylon 5 site. The movie's pre-production was mentioned in a previous discussion. For more on the creation of the film, the CG Society has an ongoing series of articles about the production's effects development."

I have this horrid fear. Fear that sites like that is what "Joe" prefers. Just look at MySpace! Or Facebook! *shudders*. 90% of the world is crazy I tell you, and soon all the web will be collected under an interactive flash video with background music.

I was speaking about site which is referenced by the article and horrible choices made by webmaster himself or herself.Going -1 levels is not big deal, it is just something Slashdot is on wrong path with recent editorial policy changes. They are trying to be some site which copied it and it will really fail horribly. Looks like the reader profile already made their way and actually got moderation points.

Yeah, I admit I cannot find a link to the trailer within the two minutes of patience I had for the site navigation and design. If this is the future, it'll be a dim one indeed. After all, imagine how difficult the light switches would be to find.

Id go along with that, soap opera was not intended to be derogatory its pretty good for sci fi but nothing to gush over. Frankly the only sci-fi shows I thought toped the acting on B5 would be, in order, FireFly, Battle Star (the remake), and maybe farscape..

Along with the 5 video diaries that you can also find at the official site, an additional video diary with a behind the scenes look at the how the special effects for the production were done is also available at this link. [vmix.com]

Among other things you get a longer glimpse at the space battle scene shown in the trailer.

Anyone have an actual link to the trailer? The official website is a downright abomination. I have no fuckign idea if the content is loading or if the thing froze or even if I've clicked on the right freaking button.

youtube has all the trailers posted. came out 3-8 weeks back depending on which trailer or video diary you are looking for. frankly, the teaser trailer blows the official trailer out of the water. also, jms has additional work on his B5 myspace page. dont have a link for you on the myspace page stuff though.
http://http//www.youtube.com/results?search_query= babylon+5+lost+tales&search= [http]

B5 has a very rich universe and there is absolutely no need to keep rehashing those same old (some of them I really like) characters over and over again like they could create a story by themselves.

I wouldn't mind seeing a B5 TV movie with the old cast*, except that I *knew* JMS was not going to be able to resist throwing in his stupid technomages and was sadly proven right once I managed to find the trailer.

The technomages were an annoyance the first time around, but at least they were only in one episode.

The technomages are not a bad idea by itself. They embody two characteristics I find interesting, the domain of "sufficiently advanced technology", as in being able to wreak havoc on B5's computers and predicting the future, and a reverence to it akin to religious devotion - They employ such technologies and, because of it, they inspire fear and respect and, in return, they commit themselves to preserving it.It's an interesting group and, in the original series, I thought they could appear a little more.

Are you sure you clicked the "Babylon 5 - The lost tales"-tab and viewed the correct trailer?I didn't find the effects particularely cheesy there, I'm sorry if you did.

On the other hand, B5 always had to survive on a shoe string budget. One quoted number was that it at most for one episode, B5 got about 25% of what it cost to produce one Star Trek episode. With that in mind, I'm quite impressed with what they accomplished.

I always admired the designs and ideas of B5 and thought them to be inventive, ingenious and on the whole quite beautiful. Even if you're of course often more aware that you're watching CG, mostly due to the restrictive budget from what I can tell.

Agreed. Much of the "cheesiness" can be explained through various routes. The Minbari ship prominently showed will definitely look cheezy at that resolution and compression. Each race has its own style in B5, and the Minbari's have a "lifelike" appearance, often compared to fish. Their exteriors have a skin-like sheen, and that definitely came across looking fairly ass in the trailer. The more standard metal exteriors weren't given much screen time, but you could see it on the Star Furies (human personal fi

"B5 had some of the first realistic space combat ever showed on a screen."

This was one of the best things, in my mind, going on in Bab5. Yeah, the aliens had their anti-grav and super stuff, but Earth had the Starfuries with their opposing jets, the destroyers with the rotating sections. It was even better when they did the space battles with silence.

Loved that show. And my wife got me the complete series on DVD for Christmas last year!

While I agree that B5 showed some of the most realistic space combat to date (only recently surpassed by BSG), I have to call shenanigans on that NASA story. The only references to anything even close to that I can find online are unsupported "trivia" references, and all of them suspiciously have exactly the same wording. If you can find some more substantial evidence for the claim, then I'll believe you. Until then, I'll go on believing that NASA worked on several designs for Orbital Maneuvering Vehicles [nasa.gov] (

Ironically as I understand it, the original shows were all filmed on good quality film in a widescreen aspect ratio for their eventual DVD/Laserdisc/HD/whatever release. The assumption was that by then, the special effects could be re-done at a higher quality with new technology to match the quality of the film. That of course never came to fruition, but it was a nice hope.

10 years have passed, luckily computer graphics have not advanced in that time, otherwise the movie might loose continuity with the 90's TV show.

Unfortunately, with a very few notable exceptions I don't think they've advanced where I'd like them to - in the "old days" it was puppets and cheesy special effects. The special effects got a lot better so the puppets looked silly, but what we got for the most part is aliens which all mysteriously are about 6 feet tall bipeds with two arms. If they're not, they're

Just over a year ago, Andreas Katsulas -- who loved smoking with apassion that cannot be described -- was diagnosed with lung cancer,which by then had already spread to other areas. He quit smoking atonce and went on a healthy diet and vitamin program, but there waslittle hope of a good resolution even though the new regimen was verygood for him. When we spoke about it, he laughed, and said, "Now thatI'm dying I've never felt better!"

His spirits were always up and positive, putting everyone at ease abouthis condition, because...well, that's the kind of person he was.

A couple of months ago, he and his wife convened a dinner with me,Doug, and Peter Jurasik, which was filled with laughter and stories andgood food. He wanted to know all the stories we never told himbecause, as he said, "Who am I going to tell?" So we did. Because weknew we were saying goodbye, and there would not be a second chance.

Last night, in the company of his wife and family, Andreas closed hiseyes and went away.

He lived an amazing life...full of travel and wonder and goodwork...was part of the world renowned Peter Brook company...he saw theplanet, loved and was loved, ate at great restaurants, smoked too manycigarettes...he lived a life some people would die for.

And, sadly, due to the last part of that equation...he did.

Memorial arrangements are still being worked out, but will doubtless beprivate.

Andreas is gone...and G'Kar with him, because no one else can ever playthat role, or ever will.

I was awakened today with several phone calls from cast members and Doug topass along the terrible news that this morning, Richard Biggs passed away.

We're still gathering information, so take none of this as firm word, but whatseems to have happened, happened quickly. He woke up, got up out of bed...andwent down. The paramedics who showed up suggested it was either an aneurysm ora massive stroke.

His family members have been informed, and all of the the cast have, as far aswe can determine, also been informed.

This is a terrible loss for all of us. Richard was a consummate professionalbut more than that he was an honorable, stand-up guy. If he gave you his wordon something, you never had to wonder about it afterward. He was alwayshelpful and supportive of all the cast, even those who only came in for oneepisode, always with a ready smile and determined to do whatever it took tomake the scene work. He was, quite simply, a terrific guy, and everyone hereis just devastated at the news.

More word as this develops. We may try to have some kind of fund raiser tohelp give whatever assistance may be helpful for his kids.

"When we spoke about it, he laughed, and said, "Now that I'm dying I've never felt better!""

Oddly enough, that unscripted statement happens to be *quintessential* G'Kar..

He also said he really liked the G'kar makeup and that he felt it made him look sleek and sexy. I'm not sure if that's from the heart or if he's just having a go at us. The practical jokes on the B5 set are the stuff of legends. On the set they used to call Andreas Two-Pack G'Kar on account of how much he smoked.

The practical joke battle I remember the most involved Andreas and Peter getting to a con presentation a little early. JMS hates public speaking and is always nervous. Those two rogues coached the

As a Marf (one diagnosed with Marfan Syndrome) with a high percentage of dying from Aortic Dissection, the death of Richard Biggs (whom I also followed in his days on Daze of our Lives...), it ripped me to shreds. It still does.

And about the only two from the cast that's back is Bruce Boxlighter and the woman that played the station commander for a season after the show should have ended. Still, no Mira (although she is in lost unless they've killed her off and I missed it) or Jerry Doyle or most of the rest of the cast. I know Doyle does a radio show now, but sort of half expected a cameo....

No indication that it's going to be aired, from what I saw, on Sci-Fi or TNT/TBS/Whoever had the series for most of it's run. That was

The budget for Voices in the Dark wasn't exceptionally high, so they decided to cut the release from three stories down to two, removing the story that would have involved Jerry Doyle. If sales go well (within two days of being available for pre-order on Amazon back in April, it was up to #5 on the top sellers list), future stories will bring in more characters. Jerry Doyle, Mira Furlan, and Peter Jurasik would probably appear in the second or third releases, obviously depending on availability.

Yes, B5 was my favourite series for a time, even over ST:NG. The continuity of the story made it incredible addictive and increased the deepness of every single main character. I'm not sure it's the best format for a couple of mini spinoffs.
Sadly, as far as I know Richard Biggs (Dr Franklin) wasn't the only actor that died after the series: the incredible Andreas Katsulas (G'Kar) passed away some time ago too.

It oughta also be +1 insightful. What ol' Zathras said is absolutely true; it is easier to get things done when everyone else's forgotten about you.

I always like Zathras. But even more than that, I liked his younger brother Zathras, who reminded me of myself. I just wish I could get the hang of the pronounciation differences among the Zathras brothers' names.

Voices in the Dark is the title of the first Lost Tales DVD to be published

Voices in the Dark will be set in 2272. It will feature two linked plotlines viewed separately one after the other but covering the same 72-hour timespan: the first follows ISA President John Sheridan on his way to B5 for a celebration of the 10th Anniversary of the formation of the Interstellar Alliance. During the journey he unexpectedly picks up the Centauri Prince Regent Vintari (third in line to the Centauri Imperial throne) on the edge of Centauri space, and receives a warning from Galen the techno-mage about coming events. The second will feature Colonel (formerly Captain during the series' run) Lochley on B5 awaiting Sheridan's arrival, who summons a priest from Earth space to help deal with a mysterious, seemingly supernatural problem.[14]

Straczynski has stated that predicated on the success of Voices in the Dark a second installment could be released as soon as early 2008.[24] Peter Jurasik has stated that he was contacted by Straczynski to reprise his role as Londo Mollari for a set of alien centric stories after the initial batch centered around humans. He has stated that he said yes to him, "if you [Straczynski] wrote it, I'd do it".[25] The second installment is also set to include a story centered around the character Michael Garibaldi, initially planned for the first installment.[15]

In response to a question about Harlan Ellison writing for the Lost Tales, who acted as conceptual consultant and writer for the original series, Straczynski has stated that he is "sure that down the road I can get Harlan to do something for us". However, for now the studio is pushing for just himself to work on the Lost Tales according to Straczynski, stating they "want this to be you [Straczynski]" because the studio already knows him and likes him.[12]

One of the big events in the Babylon 5 universe that the Lost Tales is set to explore eventually is the Telepath War.[12] Straczynski reportedly stated at the New York Comic-Con in February 2007 that he already has a concept for a possible direct-to-dvd Telepath War story in mind.[24][26]

Straczynski has stated that David Sheridan (John Sheridan and Delenn's son) will both be mentioned in Voices in the Dark, and that he will be seen somewhere else, "in the next DVD"

And you need no more proof of it than the troubles faced by successor projects. Hell, Season 5 was a mess because of the uncertainty of cancellation. TNT fucked Crusade terribly. Of the TV movies, only In the Beginning was any good. That's what, one in four? I saw nothing of Legend of the Rangers and I hear that's probably for the best.

Between the poor quality of the successor projects and the difficulty of getting anything good on the air in today's television market, the success of the original series is all the more remarkable. If you simply look at the odds, this show never should have happened, a statistical fluke. But the impossible happened. I wonder if JMS can make the impossible happen twice.

JMS's Jeremiah series was incredible problem was the second season Showtime wanted to change the show and JMS told them to pound sand, showtime still had a contract for season two so they forced it and season two is 100% crap.

rent and watch the Season 1 of Jeremiah. It will suck you in with the same vigor that B5 did.

JMS's Jeremiah series was incredible problem was the second season Showtime wanted to change the show and JMS told them to pound sand, showtime still had a contract for season two so they forced it and season two is 100% crap.

rent and watch the Season 1 of Jeremiah. It will suck you in with the same vigor that B5 did.

Well, that gets back to my point. Shows have two big challenges: first, be good; second, survive the meddling of the networks. Jeremiah sounds like it was killed not long after the cradle, the main difference between it and Crusade is that at least Jeremiah had an intact and good first season. I never got to watch Crusade but I heard what JMS had planned was very, very good and the unmeddled episodes bear that out. Babylon 5 easily could have snuffed it at the end of any of the first four seasons. The mira

It's because it just told a story. There are few or no episodes where you finish and think, "fucking writers are just killing time before the cliffhanger season finale, which will be quickly and easily resolved in one episode of the next season, after which we'll likely get more of this crap!"

Exactly. Take what many consider to be the worst episode ever, TKO, season 1. The A plot was what everyone hated bt the b story involved susan coming to terms with the death of her father. That b plot was one of the best of the season. Even when the show is bad, it's great.:) If clauidia had not pulled her stunt after season 4, she would have had lyta's role in the whole telepath storyline. Powerful stuff.

The last, best hope for Babylon 5 died when Straczynski was forced to rush the ending of the original story arc after Season 3. Everything that came after that, including that godawful thing with Lumbergh, was just unwatchable.

The best thing about B5 was that, originally, it actually felt like you were in a big universe. The most brilliant scene in the entire show was when Catherine Sakai is telling G'Kar about the time her ship lost power when "something" -- an object so huge it blotted out the sun -- cruised by. Sakai describes what happened and asks G'Kar what the thing might have been. They're standing in the garden, and G'Kar sees an ant crawling up a flower stem. He puts his finger on the stem, the ant crawls onto it and onto his hand, and then after a few seconds he lets the ant crawl back onto the flower. He looks at Sakai and says, "That ant meets another ant and asks, what was that?..."

But after the third season, all that was out the window, and all that was left was a bad space combat show.

"The last, best hope for Babylon 5 died when Straczynski was forced to rush the ending of the original story arc after Season 3."

Nonsense - nothing was rushed after season 3.

Several things were changed towards the end of season 4 because they weren't sure if they'd get a season 5 - which means season 5 feels more detached from the whole. But it was always the intention to show life after the war was over.

After all, using B5 as an example the "Techno Mages" are viewed either as gods, magicians, or freaks, depending on where they are. For what we may construe as purely fantasy may simply be because we don't understand science enough to know what is and what isn't truly possible.

We are an arrogant people who for some reason think we know everything yet laugh at those who came before us for thinking the very same thing

Well put. Dune, for example, had loads of dreams, visions etc but it was science fiction, not fantasy, because it was quite obvious that the human mind had evolved (perhaps thanks to Spice) in the tens of thousands of years since present-day. And frankly, our knowledge of cosmology and what the human brain can do is pretty primitive. For example, is consciousness preserved at the quantum level, thus leading to the possibility that reincarnation is possible? I think not, but I can't prove it -- which makes it excellent 'story material'.

People who think that 21st century science is the be-all and end-all of all knowledge display staggering amounts of hubris, especially since they are familiar with overzealous predictions like "everything that can be patented has been patented" and "there's a world market for maybe 5 computers".

Whether it's overused or not is another question -- that depends on the writer, and I think the B5 seasons treated techno-mages and psychics quite well. Especially compared to a certain Betazoid on TNG, whose sole purpose seemed to be, er, wear dresses and state the obvious.

Out of all SciFi, baring Serenity, B5 is the best. But Technomages, prophets with flashes from the future and even time travel are used as storyline crutches. The whole mystery aspect of B5 is overblown and abused, the show would be much better if it was toned down.If I want fantasy, I watch fantasy. Just because SciFi can masquerade as fantasy does not change that.

BTW, Dune 2 was horrible SciFi series with the ugliest actors I've ever seen. Especially that woman that was suppose to be "oh so beautiful" tha

Out of all SciFi, baring Serenity, B5 is the best. But Technomages, prophets with flashes from the future and even time travel are used as storyline crutches. The whole mystery aspect of B5 is overblown and abused, the show would be much better if it was toned down.

"The passing of the techno mages" trilogy by Jeanne Cavelos does a lot to both explain and enhance the mystery around the techno mages.

I too felt that there was a little too much magic and not enough SciFi surrounding the techno mages before I read those. Afterwards though, my feeling that most things in the b5-universe does have an explanation is stronger than ever. Within reason of course:)

Overall I'm extremely happy with the level of explanation versus mystery the show provides, but it does take quite

Okay - here are some spoilers for those who have not read the Technomage trilogy......The Technomage [book] trilogy which JMS has said is mostly canon, and an unfilmed Crusade script reveals much about the origins of the Technomages. They achieve their "magic" using organic implants provided by the Shadows. The Technomages' technology was originally used by the Shadows to create their ultimate warriors (in the same way that the Vorlons created a few "super weapons" like Lyta).So it would look like magic to

Yeah, but the whole "Galen just happened to be in the Eye in time to disable the defenses with his zero-term equation so that the White Star could carry out Sheridan's commands" thing was just a little too con-veeeeeenient (said in my best Church Lady voice). JMS was definitely trying to spackle over a plot hole with that one.

Otherwise I loved that trilogy. And the Centauri one too. Okay, fine. I thought the Telepath trilogy pretty swell as well.

And when reading Dune, just stop after the few first books, as after children of dune even the faintest notion of quality just dissapears;)

Fah! God Emporer of Dune was an excellent novel. It was simply different from the preceeding three. The remaining two books on the other hand, I would certainly agree with you about the quality issue. When I got to Chapterhouse Dune, the thrill was gone and I was just thinking "Blah! Blah! Look everyone, I think I'm a philosopher! Blah! Blah!"

I liked it up to and including "God Emperor", which, IMHO, was the perfect place for the series to end. It had as much--and, really, more--closure than I'd expected or wanted out of those books.I approached the 5th book with a, "well, WTF is he going to write about now?" attitude, which may be why I hated it (and 6, which I could never bring myself to finish). Also, starting with 4, but really badly in 5, Herbert started sliding into the writing style which he used in seemingly every book other than Dune

People who think that 21st century science is the be-all and end-all of all knowledge display staggering amounts of hubris, especially since they are familiar with overzealous predictions like "everything that can be patented has been patented" and "there's a world market for maybe 5 computers".

True, but it's the best we have. It doesn't mean you can pass something off as "science fiction" when it has no basis in any sort of scientific knowledge or speculation. That's like saying, "Oh, in the future, we c

I think Clarke's Third Law is fairly well accepted, but you risk abusing it as a catch-all, deux ex machina, "it was just a dream" kind of argument for why fantasy elements are in fact science fiction. It's not a strong argument because what we are really talking about here is art criticism, not whether any event or object in a show is magic.

There is also arrogance where a writer says, "If they accuse me of writing about magic, I'll just point out that it is in fact just sufficiently advanced technology", and then proceeds to write something that is really fantasy in terms of genre.

While we cannot predict what will be possible in the far future, we do know a lot about the world now. The important thing here is that I'm not talking about technology, but rather the many and various forms of literature and movie genres, the history of many religions, tribes and cults, the marketing of corporations, the temptations that even the best writers can fall pray to, etc.

Taking all those factors into account, it seems fair to hold the point of view that Babylon 5 includes fantasy elements (wearing the makeup of Clarke's Third Law), that it is not really trying to be pure sci-fi or speculative fiction. I'm perfectly happy to admit it might all be possible, at the same time as saying that I don't really think that is the point the authors are making.

Yes, it is entirely possible they wanted to play around with the idea of technology-as-magic. But by the time they've thrown in all the rituals, the astral plane metaphors, etc, you have to ask:

Are they still asking, "What if this could be done?", or are they in fact asking, "Wouldn't it be cool if these guys were like wizards, yeah, we'll call them Techno-Mages, you know, play the advanced technology card, etc.. ?" It's an exaggeration, but I suspect that the GP is right, and they are in fact including fantasy in their show.

This is not a bad thing in and of itself; that's a matter of personal taste.

The idea of a "technomage" is a fairly decent staple of scifi - I just found them sort of cartoonishly implemented in the B5 universe. Wise, enigmatic, and often with odd D&D style formal british accents...

Sort of the same way with the Minbari, actually - and the rangers. I think JMS transplatend too many Renfest ideas into the future.

Many of Babylon 5's sub stories could just as well have been placed in a fantasy setting with minor editing.

Quick! Run! It's the SciFi Police!

Look, "SciFi" just a marketing label designed to make it easy to compartmentalize media in order to maximize synergistic sales. There aren't rules, canons and precepts governed by some international SciFi Body. And there damn well should never be rules like that either. Nothing kills creativity more.

It's curious that you should deliver such a rant against such a short and fairly light-hearted criticism. It's like a guilty conscience! You know the show has flaws, but you just don't want to admit them, do you?

"SciFi" just a marketing label

Bullshit. Authors like Harlan Ellison happily associate themselves with sci-fi (and also write outside the genre) without treating it like a cheap marketing ploy. And there are valid reasons for appreciating that there is a sci-fi genre with different implications to

Authors like Harlan Ellison happily associate themselves with sci-fi (and also write outside the genre) without treating it like a cheap marketing ploy.

I believe it was in fact Harlan who once said that there is a huge difference between "science fiction" and "sci-fi" and as a writer he wanted nothing to do with the latter.

Ironically, Ellison is probably responsible for most "fantasy-ish" aspects of B5, I mean "Soul Hunters" are straight out of Ellison's writings. I don't know this for sure, but having read Ellison and seen B5, it seemed obvious, especially considering his heavy involvement with B5.

An interesting historical point. I wasn't aware of the distinction between science fiction and sci-fi - could you provide it?

I tend not to bother with distinctions that will have no meaning to people not part of the group that have chosen to make it; it's as bad as cheap marketing ploys. Wouldn't be surprised if the original poster was happily using SciFi as an abbreviation for science fiction, good or bad, great and small. I understand the idea of specualtive fiction, because you could discuss the differe

An interesting historical point. I wasn't aware of the distinction between science fiction and sci-fi - could you provide it?

I tend not to bother with distinctions that will have no meaning to people not part of the group that have chosen to make it; it's as bad as cheap marketing ploys. Wouldn't be surprised if the original poster was happily using SciFi as an abbreviation for science fiction, good or bad, great and small. I understand the idea of specualtive fiction, because you could discuss the difference between "science" and "speculation" to your average or intelligent person and still make sense. Even so, that's just to acknowledge someone's perspective - I don't think the term adds much value except for insider discussions.

I think Harlan Ellison created that "distinction in terms" when he made that statement. Not to say the distinction itself was not there, he just gave it name (however good or bad). What he was trying to point out is that what we now label as "sci-fi" got away from what "science fiction" was about. In general usage "sci-fi" came to mean stories that are about laser guns, robots, and women in bizarrely impractical tin foil outfits.Its stories that use "science" as a magical way to resolve issues without really dealing with them. It is stories that are more about the gadgets than people. It is about escaping the reality into world that has nothing to do with our own.

Science fiction on other hand is not about those things. It is about people and the world we live in. No matter how alien the setup is and what aliens, robots, etc are the subject of the story, good science fiction is always relevant to us here and now. All the standard "sci-fi" items are not the point of the story, they are just tools to set up the story in a way that may not be possible (or at least easy) with straight fiction.

There are many good examples of the distinction in recent movies - "I, Robot" the "science fiction" book was a deep examination of human behavior by extracting the idealized behavior and overlaying it on a machine and then viewing it from a human perspective (among many other things) - "I,Robot" - the "sci-fi" movie supposedly based on the book, but really about killer robots. Or "Mimsy were the Borgroves" - a brilliant short story about "nature vs nurture" and the effect of the toys on the way the mind develops - "The Last Mimzy" - a "sci-fi" movie based on the story that castrates any sort of meaning from original work and instead does a random children's adventure with even more random environmental message (where did that come from?)

B5, Firefly, etc all were good science fiction because if you take out the space ships and laser guns and aliens, you still got a strong story about something. I mean B5's big conflict of "community" vs "individual" is universal and applies just as well to "Vorlons" vs "Shadows" as it does to "USSR" vs "USA" in cold war or "socialism" vs "capitalism" in general. It is a fundamental conflict that's as old as time and instead of rehashing it again from one side or another, B5 shows what it is like to be the little guy caught in the middle.

Now, I just want to add, there is definitely a place for "sci-fi" out there and truth be told, I enjoyed both movies mentioned above - but there is no way I can call them good science fiction.

great science fiction must first and foremost be great fiction - something most Sci-Fi misses by a mile

Although I see you have no problem making such subtle distinctions.. I'm wondering whether the definition of Sci-Fi will be a tautology that excludes the possibility of it ever being great fiction.

As I tried to explain above, I don't see this distinction as all that subtle. "Sci-Fi" as we come to know it is not meant to be good fiction - instead it meant to be the opposite - escapism and distraction.

I'm a bit surprised you raise the question now, after it has been the entire thrust of my argument so far. Let me copy it from a dictionary: "stereotypenoun1 a an over-generalized and preconceived idea or impression of what characterizes someone or something, especially one that does not allow for any individuality or variation". The bit about not allowing for any individuality or variation is why I lost interest in B5 - it didn't fee

I'm a bit surprised you raise the question now, after it has been the entire thrust of my argument so far. Let me copy it from a dictionary: "stereotype noun 1 a an over-generalized and preconceived idea or impression of what characterizes someone or something, especially one that does not allow for any individuality or variation".The bit about not allowing for any individuality or variation is why I lost interest in B5

I raised that question not so much that I did not know what the word meant, but that I was not sure if you did. There are many things positive and negative I heard about B5, but this is the first time someone mentioned "the lack of individuality or variation". I really don't see that, in fact it quite the opposite - the show thrives on individuality. Its the first science fiction show where one alien cannot be easily substituted for another of same species.

Why oh why is there so much "magical" non-sense in Babylon 5. I'm talking about premonitions, soul hunters, properties and visitors from the grave. Many of Babylon 5's sub stories could just as well have been placed in a fantasy setting with minor editing.

It's SciFi damnit!

I can accept that sort of thing if there's a proper explanation. Telepathy is well-explained in the show so it's not just goofy paranormal stuff. Artificial gravity, reactionless propulsion drives, beam weapons, all are explained within the context of the show. This is far future science fiction so the existence of impossibly advanced technology is a given for the setting. Things that bother me more are obvious stupids like Garibaldi's steampipe gun (yes, using steam to fire bullets in sequence.) Delenn's bone becoming a barrette also struck me as very odd but that's more a matter of aesthetics. I think she looked better as a straight minbari and the whole transformation thing never really sat right with me from a storytelling perspective.

As for questions of the soul, that's an area of pure speculation, same with prophecy. So long as JMS keeps what he presents self-consistent, all is good. Personally, I hate prophecy storylines because they've been done to fucking death. I think it's poor storytelling. But I have seen good stories with precognition. For some stories the precognition goes along the lines of extremely educated guesses, like a chess master considering the state of the board eight moves ahead, only in this case there are a million more variables to consider. In that case, the turning points upon which the future rests become matters of extreme importance and there's always the danger of the Influential Man, the wildcard that can throw off all predictions. I've also seen good stories that use a more mystical means of showing the future. The worst ones have the future written in stone with fate and destiny shackling everyone to a fixed course of action. The better ones have precognition show a web of potentialities for the future, the seer catching quantum ripples chasing down from future to past. All and none of these futures exist and only the present exists to make those potentials real, cementing them into past.

B5 was a pretty boring show, running in endless loops of setup and premise about the grand story and only actually getting to the plot for a few episodes where everything would happen at once, then back to more premonition about the Shadows....frankly I find the idea of a direct to DVD movie about as appealing as stepping back in a time machine into the 1990's and watching it all over again.

You know what? I never really dug Farscape. I'm always open to new scifi and gave it a chance but the show just never worked for me. It's a damn shame, I'd much rather have enjoyed it. But do you see me going into Farscape threads and bagging on their show? Nope. Why? It's called courtesy. Try it sometime.

and we're now into the 21st century and not a peep of psychic power or spirituality is to be had

In the Babylon 5 universe, human psi powers were born when the Vorlon's messed with the Human genome to create them. The Vorlon's created psi powers in most of the younger races to use as weapons against the Shadows.

How doesn't that work? It's part of the story. Not some "humans outgrew violence and got psi powers" nonsense.

for a lot of B5 people the world seems confined to a B5 / Star Trek dichotomy.

It seems like at times B5 is "starter Sci-Fi" for people who never read much sci-fi or whose only exposure on TV was Star Trek.

Looking back at the 1990s sci-fi scene, what I remember is that people who read a lot of sci-fi tended to be the ones who jumped from Star Trek to Babylon 5. Partly because there was finally something on TV that wasn't just Trek (were there any other space-based shows in the late 80s/early 90s that

I think the way a lot of B5 fans compare it to Star Trek it makes it seem like they have no familiarity with sci-fi because Star Trek, particulary TNG, was the more unique perspective. I see B5 fans talk about the show's grittiness and realism as something special, but the idealized world of TNG is more unique in terms of contempory sci-fi (particulary compared to the concurrent cyper-punk movement).In the realm of television series, B5 was kind of a change of pace, but not compared to books and movies (B5

And in my experience, while many B5 fans looked down at Trek, Trek fans were more likely to be outright hostile, as if watching this upstart show would somehow be betraying Star Trek. Maybe it was a matter of the relative sizes of the fan bases, but if you picked a random B5 fan, chances were that he had seen (and maybe even enjoyed) a significant amount of Star Trek, but if you picked a random Trek fan, chances were that he had seen one episode, or had avoided it on principle.

Speaking for myself and my circle of friends when B5 came about, we were all huge trekkies who had gotten restless and disappointed with the direction the show had taken. The dramatic conventions and writing had grown stale, stilted. B5 may not have been anything new in the general realm of scifi (including books, comics, radio drama, etc) but it was certainly unusual for the small screen. The entire show was a breath of fresh air. A suitable Slashdot comparison would be the jump from Windows to OSX or Lin

The Dominion helped to make DS9 into a very good show. You should go back and watch the last few seasons one day. I didn't really care that much for B5 until the Shadows came along.

I'm pretty lenient and can watch most tv sci-fi. I watched all of Enterprise. On the other hand, I watched only about one season of Voyager, then another few episodes when they had the Borg. I watched two seasons or so of Andromeda before giving up.

I think that the pre-planned and reasonably well-executed (within the constraints of the format) multi-season storyline is what a lot of people like it for. Semi-realistic physics, a few novel episodes that weren't re-tellings of a TOS or TNG plotline, and great chemistry between some of the characters were the rest.It's not perfect, but it's refreshing.

Please, if you're in a position to advance the cause of non-ADD-inspired, multi-season story archs with a definite ending, do so. Then me and the other pe

I think that you give the game away with that sentence. The fact that you describe it as boring suggests that you've not watched many episodes, after all if it is 'boring' then why would you? This is further born out by focusing on the 'psi power' element of the show, which although very much present isn't the only game in town. Even here your assertion that psi power has never worked too well too well in sf seems slightly dubious in the light of how many creators have bundled it